In April 2020, in the midst of its first pandemic lockdown, the Dutch government announced plans to develop a contact tracing app to help contain the spread of the coronavirus – the _Coronamelder._ Originally intended to address the problem of the overburdening of manual contract tracers, by the time the app was released six months later, the problem it sought to solve had drastically changed, without the solution undergoing any modification, making it a prime example of technosolutionism. While numerous critics (...) have mobilised the concept of technosolutionism, the questions of how technosolutionism works in practice and which specific harms it can provoke have been understudied. In this paper we advance a thick conception of technosolutionism which, drawing on Evgeny Morozov, distinguishes it from the notion of technological fix, and, drawing on constructivism, emphasizes its constructivist dimension. Using this concept, we closely follow the problem that the Coronamelder aimed to solve and how it shifted over time to fit the Coronamelder solution, rather than the other way around. We argue that, although problems are always constructed, technosolutionist problems are _badly_ constructed, insofar as the careful and cautious deliberation which should accompany problem construction in public policy is absent in the case of technosolutionism. This can lead to three harms: a subversion of democratic decision-making; the presence of powerful new actors in the public policy context – here Big Tech; and the creation of “orphan problems”, whereby the initial problems that triggered the need to develop a (techno)solution are left behind. We question whether the most popular form of technology ethics today, which focuses predominantly on the _design_ of technology, is well-equipped to address these technosolutionist harms, insofar as such a focus may preclude critical thinking about whether or not technology should be the solution in the first place. (shrink)

Technology plays an important role in business and society. This has resulted in the belief that technology is in a unique position to solve organizational and societal problems. However, technology is not regarded as equally impactful by all. To explore these differences, we designed a technosolutionism scale to measure the extent to which individuals deem technological solutions to be better-suited to address organizational and societal problems. In Studies 1a and 1b, exploratory and confirmatory analyses indicated two reliable factors: (1) near-term (...) and (2) long-term focused technosolutionism. Study 2 confirmed the scale’s convergent and discriminant validity. Next, we tested the predictive validity of the technosolutionism scale. We argue that a propensity to consider intelligent technologies as being able to provide solutions should also predict preferences in areas where technological solutions are being considered in response to organizational issues. Studies 3 and 4 demonstrate that the technosolutionism scale relates to preferences for a robot over a human in job replacement decisions and preferences for artificial intelligence managers over human managers in managerial decision-making tasks, respectively. This is an important finding as current research indicates that people are generally against being replaced or being managed by intelligent technologies, whereas our findings indicate that this preference flips when it comes to those with a higher propensity for technosolutionism. Our technosolutionism scale can be used to gauge the extent to which individuals believe that technology is uniquely placed to solve problems, such that they opt for intelligent technological solutions over and above other (human) solutions. (shrink)